Directions: Read through your summaries and identify some specific points, definitions, themes, characteristics, or anything else you find unique and important about your research. Try to put those in a bulleted list that others can review in order to consider how the concepts of reciprocity are engaging with each other. The next step would be to have each of us look at these sections of individual bullets and bring some reflection and analysis to them. Those notes can be added at the bottom of the page. Make sure to identify your name when you make comments or add to the wiki. The goal of trying to bring this information together is to help consider where these disciplines/discourse overlap, intersect, and may be in tension. This is the beginning of some of the analysis that we will ideally do over a skype call that will result in the content for a significant portion of the conversation hour, where we share interesting consequences of the conversations that particular disciplines/discourses (analysis) bring to this concept review of reciprocity. Deadline: Post your bullet points by Oct. 19 so that everyone can review the bullets and make some analysis and reflection before our next collective skype call. Thanks!
Reciprocity as...
Notes from Patti, based on her own reflections (not exclusively on her review of reciprocity in some science fields):
you get back what you put out / give …. response in kind … tit for tat
each has something to offer the other (biology: various forms of symbiosis)
exchange / transaction
mutual dependence
bi-directional influence
equal and opposite reaction – negative feedback that keeps things balanced (classical physics)
distributed and interacting influence (Bandura) ... simultaneously create each other (quantum physics)
shared power/voice etc … each brings something to the table and through their integration something new is created / synergy results
sometimes about outcomes (e.g., reciprocal benefits) and sometimes about process (e.g., reciprocal interaction) and sometimes about both (additive or integrative)
trying to get at the why: Modern / Cartesian / Newtonian worldview is atomistic and reciprocity is about interactions of (2?) individuals / cause and effect / exchange / linearity ... Ecological / post-modern worldview is relational and reciprocity is about systems / emergence / connection / webs
Reciprocity as....
Notes from Brandon, based on his own reflections and literature review in the disciplinary fields of philosophy and economics/game theory.
Reciprocity as democratic equality/procedural. (Rawls)
Determining the requirements of justice is intimately connected to creating a context of reciprocity.
Rawls, procedural approach to justice, creates a hypothetical strucutre and context, the "original position," in which individuals discuss the requirements of justices behind the "veil of ignorance."
The hypothetical construct of the "veil of ignorance" prevents individual bias. Participants concerned with determine the requirements of justice enter behind the veil to create informational restraints that might bias their judgements. (knowledge of position in society, gender, race, class, social endowments, natural endowments, proclivity to risk taking, etc.)
These information restraints create a hypothetical context in which individuals interested in defining the requirements of justice, have the best chance of succeeding. Under these conditions Rawls suggests people will except two principles of justice: 1) democratic equality (positions open to all); 2) difference principle (any distributional inequality can only be justified if it benefits the least advantaged.)
For Rawls, reciprocity is....
Recognizes power - creating constructs that account for power/advantage/privilege and equalizing.
Hypothetical - For Rawls, reciprocity can only occur within the hypothetical space of the original positions and behind the veil of ignorance.
Procedural - The context of reciprocity is an integral part of defining the requirements of justice
Reciprocity as "TIT FOR TAT" (Axelrod)
David Axelrod (1984) was interested in creating a theory of cooperation that move beyond Mancur Olson’s work. Olson created a theory of cooperation based on central authority and incentives. Axelrod understood that Olson’s theory was very powerful in explaining collective action scenarios that failed. However, Olson’s same theory provide little insight on forms of successful cooperation. Therefore, Axelrod’s work attempted to extract elements of cooperation that originated between individuals and did not require the disciplinary threat of a central authority.
In an attempt to find the root of social cooperation between individuals, Axelrod created a computer simulation program. Axelrod wanted to structure the simulation to uncover effective strategies and motivations of cooperation. In order, explore the conditions in which it would be appropriate to cooperate, Axelrod created an irritated “Prisoner’s Dilemma Tournament.” The design of the game allowed individuals to chose strategies that worked towards one of three strategies. Individuals could either: (1) achieve shared gains through cooperation, (2) maximize individual gains by exploiting others and (3) defecting all forms of cooperation. The hope of this computer simulation is that it would illustrate a formal model and pattern of the fundamental elements that motivate social cooperation.
The results of the stimulation were striking, the simplest program TIT-FOR-TAT was the most successful strategy. The TIT-FOR-TAT program simply started with cooperation and then would mimic other players previous moves. After multiple iterations of the game, other player’s soon realized, with a level of trust, cooperation with the TIT-FOR-TAT strategy was the best course of action. The results of the simulation helped Axelrod reconsider cooperation in terms of an evolutionary process. The idea being that cooperation could eventually emerge between social groups and organizations based solely on commitments to reciprocity.
Reciprocity as "strong reciprocity" (Gintis et al.)
Strong Reciprocity – Gintis et al. Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life
Strong reciprocity is a “predisposition to cooperate with others, and to punish (at a personal cost, if necessary) those who violate the norms of cooperation even when it is implausible to expect that these costs will be recovered at a later date (p. 8).
The strong reciprocity literature goes once step further than Axelrod. The gintis et al. book tracks how conceptions of strong reciprocity explain cooperation in a full range of scenarios.
Notes from Sarah and Barbara, based on MJCSL and Advances series:
Term can be used in different ways, yet we act as if the term means the same thing to everyone. Lowery et al (2006) note that meanings vary from partnership to partnership
Reciprocity is often used in SL/CE literature without defining the term
It is often used in the same sentence as the word mutual or mutuality, or has the same connotation as mutuality, sometimes referred to as bidirectionality (Hill Warter & Grossman, 2001)
Reciprocity is noted as a core concept in SL/CE (e.g. Giles, 2010; Jacoby, 1996; Mintz & Hesser, 1996; Saltmarsh et al, 2006; Sandmann et al, 2010)
Reciprocity is frequently described in terms of mutual learning (all involved teach/learn, are potentially changed), all serve/are served, give/gain (e.g. Gugerty & Swezey, 1996; Mintz & Hesser, 1996; Jacoby, 1996: Saltmarsh et al, 2006; Sigmon, 1994)
It is seen to be at the basis of partnerships, “with” not for/to (Jacoby, 1996; Mintz & Hesser, 1996). Reciprocity is most often used in relation to partnerships (campus/community or students/faculty) although Giles (2010) refers to it as reciprocity between research and practice as well
Is an expression of values (Giles, 2010; Jacoby, 1996)
Palmer (1990) suggests that reciprocity was a word of epistemology before it became a word of ethics
Degree of implementation in SL/CE varies—maybe like a continuum or thick/thin?
Noted to be hard to measure, and outcomes are described in vague manner (Saltmarsh et al, 2006; Sandmann et al, 2010)
More to come on how reciprocity has been used intentionally.
Reciprocity from Indigenous epistemology:
a give-and-take, (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001) back and forth, between people, communities, problems (Hermes, 1997)
gift giving, gift exchange (Kovach, 2009); contribution (Wilson, 2008)
physical gift extended by the researcher, elders/community extending gift already by permitting the engagement.
The benefits of this must be clear (Pidgeon & Cox, 2002)
fundamentally relational. Relationality at the core of Indigenous empistemology and ontology (Carjuzaa & Fenimore-Smith, 2010; Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001; Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008).
Reciprocity honors roles in the relationship(s) (Pidgeon & Cox, 2002)
Also in conversation with Western thought and colonizing powers, emphasis on not having identity lost in privileged language or thinking that assumes collaboration to mean sameness (Carjuzaa & Fenimore-Smith, 2010; Jones & Jenkins, 2008)
Issues of power/privilege are a part of relationships, must always be acknowledged in order for reciprocity (Carjuzaa & Fenimore-Smith, 2010)
is reciprocity important
Prevents overpowering by privileged others (e.g. researchers, faculty)
“indigene-colonizer hyphen” non-negotiable in order for survival (Jones & Jenkins, 2008)
Ethical starting place of Indigenous methodologies (Kovach, 2009)
Reciprocity is part of the relational framework, but need to expand our understanding of reciprocity to include past, present, and future persons, communities, and knowledges (Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008)
There’s a distinction between reciprocity as it is written about for Indigenous scholars engaging in Indigenous methodologies and allied-others (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008) engaging in research at the indigene-colonizer hyphen (Jones & Jenkisn, 2008)
observation - reciprocity referenced a lot in the literature I read, not as easy to find a definition for it in that literature. I wonder why, is it an assumed?
Kathleen's thoughts on reciprocity:
consider it conflated with mutuality; distinction I've always made is that mutuality is accomplished when a project benefits the various parties involved in the project (could be of convenience); reciprocity goes beyond that though, conceptualized as a co-constructed, collaborative, something bigger that emerges and couldn't exist without the contribution of everyone involved.
more than an exchange
Synthesis from (very brief) overview of Leadership Literature (from Lina):
Reciprocity as a transactional/exchange tool; transformational leaders also utilize transactional behaviors – they are not a continuum, but rather two sets of tools that some leaders use. Suggests that “transactions [are] at the root of leadership (e.g., exchange, reciprocity, expectancy) and that transactional leadership is augmented to become transformatonal. Turner, Barling, Epitropaki (2002). Transformational Leadership and Moral Reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology
In an experiment on the role of announcement of leadership contributions to a public good, Potters, Sefton and Versterlund (2001) have shown that reciprocity cannot be the driving force explaining the leader’s influence. Reciprocity as defined, “follower wants to reciprocate the leader’s effort.”
LMX (leader member exchange) relationship is built through interpersonal exchanges in which parties to the relationship evaluate the ability, benevolence, and integrity of each other. Brower, Schoorman, Hwee Hoon (2000) A model of relational leadership: the integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly
These overarching themes lead me to believe that the leadership field generally conceives reciprocity as exchange and transaction and has considered its role in both transactional and transformational leadership approaches. These feed from very early work from Blau, 1964 on social exchange and Gouldner’s (1960) norm of reciprocity. As a result, I went to M-W to see if the popular definition of reciprocity is what is being embraced in leadership lit – I conclude, yes.
Mirriam Webster Dictionary:
Reciprocate: 1) to give and take mutually; 2) to return in kind or degree Reciprocal: 1) inversely related: opposite; 2) of, constituting, or resulting in paired crosses in which the kind that supplies the male parent of the first cross supplies the female parent of the second cross and vice versa; 3) serving to reciprocate: consisting of or functioning as a return in kind; 4) a- mutually corresponding b- marked by or based on reciprocity
Molm, L.D. (2011). The structure of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly. 73(2) 119-131.
Zhang, Y & Epley, N. (2009). Self-centered social exchange: Differential use of costs versus benefits in prosocial reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 97 (5). 796-810.
Keysar, B, Converse, B.A., Wang, J. & Epley, N. (2008). Reciprocity is not give and take: Asymmetric reciprocity to positive and negative acts. Psychological Science. 19(12) 1280-1286.
Reciprocity- the giving of benefits to another in return for benefits received, is one of the defining features of social exchange, and more broadly of social life.
Molm- Reciprocal Exchange- actors perform individual acts that benefit another without negotiation and without knowing whether or when the other will reciprocate.
- comes from training in behavioral sociology
- influenced by classical theorists (Homans, Blau, Thibault, Kelly) -> social exchange approach
Reciprocity is the glue that holds societies and groups together. -> you scratch my back and I will scratch yours
- reciprocity follows the norm of “an eye for an eye” but it is important to remember that perceptions of equity exist in the eye of the beholder.
Social exchange based on the meaning of social actions rather than an objective value
- + actions of giving are reciprocated in comparable measure, whereas negative actions of taking are reciprocated more selfishly and followed by escalation
- “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours but if you take my eye, I will take both of yours”
What is reciprocity- social exchange of resources that is impacted by subjective meaning of actions defined by sociological definition/ conceptualization of reciprocity (Gouldner)
(Still needs more analysis, but this is a start)
Notes from kathleen, first attempts at analyzing:
The equal/opposite reaction idea from classical physics (Patti) resonates with the Indigenous idea of harmony and balance as fundamental to relationships. This means seeing some negative things as being necessary for maintaining harmony. But I wonder if that could ever be an acceptable way of thinking about reciprocity as it relates to CE work? Certainly it would not be acceptable in terms of relationships of allied others or indigene-colonizer. But if reciprocity is considered more broadly than only the relationships of the partners (as individual people, present at this moment) than there might be places where it could be about achieving a sense of balance, but I'm just not sure of examples of what this might look like.
the ecological/postmodern worldview (Patti) also aligns with Indigenous emphasis on relationality, and the expansion of reciprocity to encompass relationships of past/present/future, dream-world/spirit-world/waking-world, individuals, communities, animal/natural.
Rawls' concern about power - is this similar to Indigenous concerns about contemporary researchers/universities in the (historical) context of the colonizer?
Similar observations by Sarah/Barbara and Kathleen about the word being used a lot, but not being defined very often.
Came across nothing in the literature that would suggest that reciprocity would be of interest for measuring (in contrast to SL/CE lit)
Interested in learning more about the idea of reciprocity as a word of epistemology (Palmer, 1990) b/c that seems like it aligns with Indigenous concepts.
I think it's possible that there would be valuable tensions in the ideas of reciprocal partnerships as described in SL/CE literature and Indigenous concerns about being inadvertently lost in the concepts of with-ness and co-ness; lack of intercultural awareness by privileged scholars. Does co-ness or with-ness have to mean sameness? How do we ensure that identities/values/uniqueness of peoples are maintained, not misinterpreted?
The goal of trying to bring this information together is to help consider where these disciplines/discourse overlap, intersect, and may be in tension. This is the beginning of some of the analysis that we will ideally do over a skype call that will result in the content for a significant portion of the conversation hour, where we share interesting consequences of the conversations that particular disciplines/discourses (analysis) bring to this concept review of reciprocity.
Deadline: Post your bullet points by Oct. 19 so that everyone can review the bullets and make some analysis and reflection before our next collective skype call. Thanks!
Reciprocity as...
Notes from Patti, based on her own reflections (not exclusively on her review of reciprocity in some science fields):
Reciprocity as....
Notes from Brandon, based on his own reflections and literature review in the disciplinary fields of philosophy and economics/game theory.
Reciprocity as democratic equality/procedural. (Rawls)
Reciprocity as "TIT FOR TAT" (Axelrod)
David Axelrod (1984) was interested in creating a theory of cooperation that move beyond Mancur Olson’s work. Olson created a theory of cooperation based on central authority and incentives. Axelrod understood that Olson’s theory was very powerful in explaining collective action scenarios that failed. However, Olson’s same theory provide little insight on forms of successful cooperation. Therefore, Axelrod’s work attempted to extract elements of cooperation that originated between individuals and did not require the disciplinary threat of a central authority.
In an attempt to find the root of social cooperation between individuals, Axelrod created a computer simulation program. Axelrod wanted to structure the simulation to uncover effective strategies and motivations of cooperation. In order, explore the conditions in which it would be appropriate to cooperate, Axelrod created an irritated “Prisoner’s Dilemma Tournament.” The design of the game allowed individuals to chose strategies that worked towards one of three strategies. Individuals could either: (1) achieve shared gains through cooperation, (2) maximize individual gains by exploiting others and (3) defecting all forms of cooperation. The hope of this computer simulation is that it would illustrate a formal model and pattern of the fundamental elements that motivate social cooperation.
The results of the stimulation were striking, the simplest program TIT-FOR-TAT was the most successful strategy. The TIT-FOR-TAT program simply started with cooperation and then would mimic other players previous moves. After multiple iterations of the game, other player’s soon realized, with a level of trust, cooperation with the TIT-FOR-TAT strategy was the best course of action. The results of the simulation helped Axelrod reconsider cooperation in terms of an evolutionary process. The idea being that cooperation could eventually emerge between social groups and organizations based solely on commitments to reciprocity.
Reciprocity as "strong reciprocity" (Gintis et al.)
Strong Reciprocity – Gintis et al. Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life
Strong reciprocity is a “predisposition to cooperate with others, and to punish (at a personal cost, if necessary) those who violate the norms of cooperation even when it is implausible to expect that these costs will be recovered at a later date (p. 8).
The strong reciprocity literature goes once step further than Axelrod. The gintis et al. book tracks how conceptions of strong reciprocity explain cooperation in a full range of scenarios.
Notes from Sarah and Barbara, based on MJCSL and Advances series:
More to come on how reciprocity has been used intentionally.
Reciprocity from Indigenous epistemology:
Kathleen's thoughts on reciprocity:
Synthesis from (very brief) overview of Leadership Literature (from Lina):
Reciprocity as a transactional/exchange tool; transformational leaders also utilize transactional behaviors – they are not a continuum, but rather two sets of tools that some leaders use. Suggests that “transactions [are] at the root of leadership (e.g., exchange, reciprocity, expectancy) and that transactional leadership is augmented to become transformatonal. Turner, Barling, Epitropaki (2002). Transformational Leadership and Moral Reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology
In an experiment on the role of announcement of leadership contributions to a public good, Potters, Sefton and Versterlund (2001) have shown that reciprocity cannot be the driving force explaining the leader’s influence. Reciprocity as defined, “follower wants to reciprocate the leader’s effort.”
LMX (leader member exchange) relationship is built through interpersonal exchanges in which parties to the relationship evaluate the ability, benevolence, and integrity of each other. Brower, Schoorman, Hwee Hoon (2000) A model of relational leadership: the integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly
These overarching themes lead me to believe that the leadership field generally conceives reciprocity as exchange and transaction and has considered its role in both transactional and transformational leadership approaches. These feed from very early work from Blau, 1964 on social exchange and Gouldner’s (1960) norm of reciprocity.
As a result, I went to M-W to see if the popular definition of reciprocity is what is being embraced in leadership lit – I conclude, yes.
Mirriam Webster Dictionary:
Reciprocate: 1) to give and take mutually; 2) to return in kind or degree
Reciprocal: 1) inversely related: opposite; 2) of, constituting, or resulting in paired crosses in which the kind that supplies the male parent of the first cross supplies the female parent of the second cross and vice versa; 3) serving to reciprocate: consisting of or functioning as a return in kind; 4) a- mutually corresponding b- marked by or based on reciprocity
Synonyms: correlative, complementary, supplemental, supplementary
Reciprocity from Psych Literature (Sarah):
Molm, L.D. (2011). The structure of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly. 73(2) 119-131.
Zhang, Y & Epley, N. (2009). Self-centered social exchange: Differential use of costs versus benefits in prosocial reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 97 (5). 796-810.
Keysar, B, Converse, B.A., Wang, J. & Epley, N. (2008). Reciprocity is not give and take: Asymmetric reciprocity to positive and negative acts. Psychological Science. 19(12) 1280-1286.
Reciprocity- the giving of benefits to another in return for benefits received, is one of the defining features of social exchange, and more broadly of social life.
Molm- Reciprocal Exchange- actors perform individual acts that benefit another without negotiation and without knowing whether or when the other will reciprocate.
- comes from training in behavioral sociology
- influenced by classical theorists (Homans, Blau, Thibault, Kelly) -> social exchange approach
Reciprocity is the glue that holds societies and groups together. -> you scratch my back and I will scratch yours
- reciprocity follows the norm of “an eye for an eye” but it is important to remember that perceptions of equity exist in the eye of the beholder.
Social exchange based on the meaning of social actions rather than an objective value
- + actions of giving are reciprocated in comparable measure, whereas negative actions of taking are reciprocated more selfishly and followed by escalation
- “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours but if you take my eye, I will take both of yours”
What is reciprocity- social exchange of resources that is impacted by subjective meaning of actions defined by sociological definition/ conceptualization of reciprocity (Gouldner)
(Still needs more analysis, but this is a start)
Notes from kathleen, first attempts at analyzing: